by Kit

Last week the New Yorker, and yesterday Salon magazine, published editorials arguing against the very existence of an “American Deep State”. The arguments presented are very…interesting. Both are, perhaps, classic cases of protesting too much

Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I’m convinced.

This article, appearing in the New Yorker on Sunday, sets out to tell its readers that there is no such thing as an American “deep state”, repeatedly rubbishing the very idea whilst – at the same time – making a compelling case for the exact opposite.

To start off the author, David Remnick, relates a very cheery sounding story about a young man’s transformative journey from junior naval officer to hard-hitting journalist. I shall relate it to you in bullet points, for the sake of brevity:

Through his mouthpiece, Kevin Lewis, Obama is back. The great Uniter, Mr. Hope and Change, the messiah of “we’re all in this together,” the father of Obamacare, the prophet of post-racial America, the former First Community Organizer, the free cell phone provider is on the stump again.

Politico: “Kevin Lewis, spokesman for Obama in his post-presidency, said that Obama — who has been threading the balance between the tradition of presidents deferring to their successors and coming out against President Donald Trump on specific issues he considered core values — ‘is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country’.”

“It is Obama’s first statement since leaving the White House.”

“’Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we…

I’m taking another look because I have a new statement about a related case: Melaney Parker, a woman found dead on the railroad tracks in Marfa, Texas, in 2013, after a train hit her.

The same judge who inexplicably decided Scalia needed no autopsy, after he died in Texas, in 2016, came to the same conclusion in the Melaney Parker case.

That Texas judge is Cinderela Guevara.

Heavy.com (Feb 2016) summarizes the questions surrounding the 2013 death of Melaney Parker and Guevara’s role:

“Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz…

The Trump camp continues to draw DOJ transition officials from the nation’s largest law firms. The newest members are McGuireWoods partner J. Patrick Rowan, the former head of the National Security Division; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Ronald Tenpas, the former head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division; and Morrison & Foerster partner Jessie Liu, who served as a top official in the National Security and Civil Rights divisions.

Since the 2008 housing crisis, federal regulators have touted billion-dollar settlements, which, by giving certainty to investors, are often accompanied by a jump in the bank’s stock price.

Financial companies have paid at least $164 billion in more than 100 mortgage-related settlements since 2009, according to an analysis by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Below, we examine the eight banks that have paid the most and explain how the largest payments were divided up.

1. Bank of America: $71.23 billion in 24 settlements

The bank has settled mortgage-related cases with a plethora of federal and state regulators as well as investors from the Justice Department and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. A number of these settlements are tied to Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch.

In 2014, the bank paid the single largest government settlement by a company in American history: $16.65 billion. Some of…

While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017”, which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda and calling for the US government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.